3. The Decadence of Capitalism

  1. Junius
    ICC Platform
    For the proletarian revolution to go beyond being a mere hope or historical potentiality or perspective and become a concrete possibility, it had to become an objective necessity for the development of humanity. This has in fact been the historic situation since the First World War: this war marked the end of the ascendant phase of the capitalist mode of production, a phase which began in the sixteenth century and which reached its zenith at the end of the nineteenth century. The new phase which followed was that of the decadence of capitalism.

    As in all previous societies, the first phase of capitalism expressed the historically necessary character of its productive relations, that is to say their indispensable role in the expansion of society’s productive forces. The second phase, on the other hand, expressed the increasing transformation of these relations into a fetter on the development of the productive forces.

    The decadence of capitalism is the product of the development of the internal contradictions inherent in the relations of capitalist production which can be summarised in the following way. Although commodities have existed in nearly all societies, the capitalist economy is the first to be fundamentally based on the production of commodities. Thus the existence of an ever-increasing market is one of the essential conditions for the development of capitalism. In particular, the realisation of the surplus value which comes from the exploitation of the working class is indispensable for the accumulation of capital which is the essential motor-force of the system. Contrary to what the idolaters of capital claim, capitalist production does not create automatically and at will the markets necessary for its growth. Capitalism developed in a non-capitalist world, and it was in this world that it found the outlets for its development. But by generalising its relations of production across the whole planet and by unifying the world market, capitalism reached a point where the outlets which allowed it to grow so powerfully in the nineteenth century became saturated. Moreover, the growing difficulty encountered by capital in finding a market for the realisation of surplus value accentuates the fall in the rate of profit, which results from the constant widening of the ratio between the value of the means of production and the value of the labour power which sets them in motion. From being a mere tendency, the fall in the rate of profit has become more and more concrete; this has become an added fetter on the process of capitalist accumulation and thus on the operation of the entire system.

    Having unified and universalised commodity exchange, and in so doing made it possible for humanity to make an immense leap forward, capitalism has thus put on the agenda the disappearance of relations of production based on exchange. But as long as the proletariat has not undertaken the task of making them disappear, these relations of production maintain their existence and entangle humanity in a more and more monstrous series of contradictions.

    The crisis of over-production, a characteristic expression of the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production but one which in the past, when the system was still healthy, constituted an essential spur for the expansion of the market, has today become a permanent crisis. The under-utilisation of capital’s productive apparatus has become permanent and capital has become incapable of extending its social domination, if only to keep pace with population growth. The only thing that capitalism can extend across the world today is absolute human misery which already is the lot of many backward countries.

    In these conditions, competition between capitalist nations has become more and more implacable. Since 1914 imperialism, which has become the means of survival for every nation no matter how large or small, has plunged humanity into a hellish cycle of crisis - war - reconstruction - new crisis…, a cycle characterised by immense armaments production which has increasingly become the only sphere where capitalism applies scientific methods and a full utilisation of the productive forces. In the period of capitalist decadence, humanity is condemned to live through a permanent round of self-mutilation and destruction.

    The physical poverty which grinds down the underdeveloped countries is echoed in the more advanced countries by an unprecedented dehumanisation of social relationships which is the result of the fact that capitalism is absolutely incapable of offering any future to humanity, other than one made up of more and more murderous wars and a more and more systematic, rational and scientific exploitation. As in all other decadent societies this has led to a growing decomposition of social institutions, of the dominant ideology, of moral values, of art forms and all the other cultural manifestations of capitalism. The development of ideologies like fascism and Stalinism express the triumph of barbarism in the absence of a revolutionary alternative.
    Comment.
  2. zimmerwald1915
    I'll try to go more in-depth later, but something that has always annoyed me about this section of the platform, and about the way the ICC expresses its analysis of decadence in general, is the emphasis on the First World War. By about the middle of this section, they get down to a proper explication of the theory, talking about how capitalism "unified and universalized commodity exchange" causing a "permanent" "crisis of overproduction" that engenders "competition among capitalist nations" for ever-larger spheres of the world market while everywhere creating "physical poverty" and the "dehumanization of social relationships".

    But what a casual reader will notice is that decadence is associated in the very first paragraph, before the relationship of the relations of production to the productive forces is even mentioned, with the First World War. Furthermore, the way the sentence is phrased, it could seem, again to a casual reader, that the First World War was the cause of capitalist decadence rather than a signal of capitalism's entry into decadence.
  3. beltov
    beltov
    ...the way the sentence is phrased, it could seem, again to a casual reader, that the First World War was the cause of capitalist decadence rather than a signal of capitalism's entry into decadence.
    Well, the sentence actually reads "This has in fact been the historic situation since the First World War: this war marked the end of the ascendant phase of the capitalist mode of production". I think saying that WW1 'marked' the onset of decadence makes it clear that it was a signal, not a cause of decadence. I'm sure there are more deeper disagreements than this!

    For example, I've often heard it said that:
    - Marx didn't have a theory of decadence,
    - that 'decadence theory' is an invention of the ICC, and
    - that you can still be a marxist and not agree with decadence theory.

    We wrote a series of articles in the International Review several years ago arguing that the theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism:
    http://en.internationalism.org/series/287

    ...the theory of decadence is simply the concretisation of historical materialism in the analysis of the evolution of modes of production. It is thus the indispensable framework for understanding the historical period we are living in. Knowing whether society is still progressing, or whether it has had its day historically, is decisive for grasping what is at stake on the political and socio-economic levels, and acting accordingly. As with all past societies, the ascendant phase of capitalism expressed the historically necessary character of the relations of production it embodies, that is, their vital role in the expansion of society’s productive forces. The phase of decadence, by contrast, expresses the transformation of these relations into a growing barrier to this same development. This is one of the main theoretical acquisitions left us by Marx and Engels.
    http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_decadence_i.html


    B.
  4. zimmerwald1915
    I'm sure there are more deeper disagreements than this!
    I'm sure there are too, or there wouldn't be a need for a series of articles. Then again, these disagreements won't come from me
  5. Devrim
    Devrim
    For example, I've often heard it said that:
    - Marx didn't have a theory of decadence,
    - that 'decadence theory' is an invention of the ICC, and
    - that you can still be a marxist and not agree with decadence theory.
    I argued this on Libcom the other day with somebody who was insisting that Marx didn't have a theory of decadence. We eventually agreed that he did. Marxists by definition hold a decadence theory. This does not mean that it is the same as the ICC's.

    I'm sure there are more deeper disagreements than this!
    I would imagine that more of the disagreements come from the implications of it rather than the theory itself.

    Devrim
  6. zimmerwald1915
    It seems we're all decadenced-out. Does anyone else think it's time to move on to Point 4?
  7. beltov
    beltov
    Why not? We can always come back to this later.
  8. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Marxists by definition hold a decadence theory. This does not mean that it is the same as the ICC's.

    [...]

    I would imagine that more of the disagreements come from the implications of it rather than the theory itself.
    I found Louis Proyect's comments on limping along and the Transitional Program interesting:

    http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...ional-program/

    Ironically, despite the fact that the current economic crisis will probably not generate the kind of mass suffering experienced in the 1930s when unemployment reached 25 percent, it is actually more intractable than that of FDR’s epoch in some ways. To start with, there are few prospects on the horizon that will deliver the kind of dynamism that smokestack industries provided during earlier stages of capitalist development. The last such jolt of energy occurred with the computer revolution which began in the 1950s and has already reached maturity. With Dell Computers selling for around $300, you are clearly dealing with an economic wave in its final stages.

    It is also important to keep in mind that it was only war production that finally broke the back of the Great Depression. With nuclear weapons virtually assuring the end of this type of conflict (thank god), the bourgeoisie can no longer rely on what Randolph Bourne once summed up as "War Is the Health of the State".

    So instead the system just limps along, looking for the next speculative bubble to keep the patient alive.
    Meanwhile, the dubious benefits of Thomas Friedman’s flat world seem to escape most people living in Africa, Asia and Latin America who exist in what amounts to a permanent Great Depression.

    I still think that the idea of a Transitional Program is a good one. Like many of Trotsky’s other theoretical breakthroughs including Permanent Revolution, it has been reduced to a dogma. Right now all I can say is that a new transitional program has to grow out of the experiences of the mass movement, just as the original one did with its emphasis on sit-down strikes, etc. As gloomy as the political prospects seem today, there is no doubt that capitalism itself will create conditions for the growth of the revolutionary movement. Ironically, it is capitalist stagnation that will finally bring an end to the stagnation that has gripped the revolutionary movement for the past 30 years or so.
    "Decadence" for me would be far more applicable to the dawn of neo-liberalism (falling rates of profit and economic growth - low wages, high debt, and lots more debt - causing the abandonment of the gold standard, the turn to monetarism, the turn to privatization for that little extra $$$, the de-regulation of financial markets for more of the little extra $$$, etc.).